Hi all. I’ve been developing a conceptual physics framework that proposes a new way of looking at quantum measurement, time, and classical emergence using what I’m calling ‘constraint field interactions’ as the underlying mechanism.
This isn’t a formal academic paper (yet); I don’t have an institutional affiliation or physics PhD. But I am very serious about developing this model coherently and rigorously. The work is still evolving, but the core idea is that reality may have stabilized through self-reinforcing patterns of constraint resolution, producing what we experience as time, classical causality, and observer-aligned outcomes.
The paper touches on:
- quantum measurement as contextual constraint resolution
- observer-dependent reference frames
- shared reality through stable constraint fields
- emergence of classical time as an output of constraint interactions
- and more speculative ideas on pre-collapse structure and substrate-level information fields
I wrote it to be as accessible as possible while still diving deep into conceptual mechanics. I welcome critique, skepticism, alternate interpretations, and questions. If anyone here enjoys unpacking new ideas or spotting holes in speculative frameworks, I’d genuinely appreciate your thoughts. More than happy to send a copy or link to the full paper upon request.
Cheers!
My point is, that you cannot make any kind of informed conceptual model UNLESS you already have mastery of the equations of existing models. Einstein used conceptual models, but he fully understood the math of the older theories he was expanding on. It doesn’t seem you have the background for this.
And yes, it seems you are proposing something that is a kind of grand unified theory, whether you recognize it or not. You’re trying to upend the entire foundations of physics, but you lack the math knowledge to understand even existing theories. You can’t improve upon that which you do not understand. If you think physics is just a conceptual model, you don’t understand physics.
I’m sorry, but you need to have some humility here. You are trying to radically change an entire discipline that you lack even undergraduate-level knowledge in.
The math is not secondary; the math is primary. If you do not understand the math, you do not understand the basic language of physics. It’s like trying to publish a literary analysis on the works some ancient Athenian playright when you can’t even read ancient Greek. There is such a thing as prerequisite knowledge. And you need to have enough humility to realize you simply lack the knowledge. You wouldn’t expect to be able to win an Olympic medal having never played the sport. But many folks suffer from the misconception that they can revolutionize physics without ever putting in the years of effort to really understand it.
Again. You cannot improve what you do not understand. And if you do not understand the math of physics, then you do not understand the physics. Save yourself the pain now. Abandon this idea until you actually have the mathematical framework to look at it and see if there is actually anything of worth in your idea. Start with humility and let go of the hubris. Otherwise you will face nothing but frustration, anger, and tears, as you cannot get anyone to respect or consider your half baked conceptual models.
Seriously. Go watch that video. The post you made ticks all the boxes on crackpot theories.
I did watch the video. I’m not staying there aren’t lots of people like you and she are describing. But she is arrogant and condescending, and frankly so are you. You also didn’t understand any of the clarifying points I made. So forget it. Don’t trouble yourself. Go on about your day creating physics miracles, which I assume is your job. You don’t need to speak to me again. You can rock yourself to sleep at night knowing you made a valiant attempt to make a stranger feel bad.
Cheers,